[wp-hackers] Re: Sqlite

[Kimmo Suominen]

Even with the stored date there is still more processing before the value
is used.  The time it takes to apply the time offset to the timestamp is
trivial comparatively, I would say.

Regards,
+ Kimmo
-- 
<A HREF="http://kimmo.suominen.com/">Kimmo Suominen</A>

On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 02:01:23PM -0400, Robert Deaton wrote:
> Storing just a unix timestamp and the offset means more parsing every
> time dates need to be seen, instead of just once and throwing it into
> the database.
> 
> On 6/23/05, Kimmo Suominen <kimmo+key+wordpress.c4f53f at suominen.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 11:14:56AM +0200, Martin Geisler wrote:
> > > Kimmo Suominen <kimmo+key+wordpress.c4f53f at suominen.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > AFAICT the big reason for both "local" and GMT (equivalent of
> > > > seconds since unix epoch) times in the database is permalink
> > > > support. The local time is needed to keep the permalinks from
> > > > changing.
> > >
> > > That doesn't mean that one couldn't use a Unix epoch timestamp: store
> > 
> > I wasn't saying that seconds from epoch timestamps cannot be used.
> > The message I replied to seemed to suggest a single timestamp, which
> > is the issue I was addressing.
> > 
> > Storing a unix timestamp and the offset from gmt on each post would
> > achieve the same result as the current two timestamps.